Talk:Megaphone (podcasting)

Deletion proposal

It has been proposed that this article be deleted. Go here for that discussion. Note that said deletion would actually revert the page into a redirect to Slate. Morganfitzp (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion would result in a red link, that's true. Unless the consensus was merge or redirect all of this goes. That's the point. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

WTAF?

During the debate to keep this article or merge it into Slate, one editor listed all past and current podcasts from the Panoply network, and then another removed most of this list citing Wikipedia:WTAF. The idea behind WTAF, as I understand it, is to discourage redlinks. What's confusing is that the deleted items from the list weren't redlinked, they were unlinked and just listed as being podcasts produced by the network. What's the policy on this? Not just for podcasting companies, but for other forms of media? For example, if an article about a band lists current and previous members, those musicians without articles about them don't get deleted. Or if an article about an musical artist or record label lists a discography, those albums or artists without their own articles don't get deleted from the list. How is an article about a podcasting company different from these? Morganfitzp (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Morganfitzp: Generally, lists should be of notable entries (certainly for "list-class" articles and to a lesser extent lists in regular articles), which is mentioned in that essay. Lists should serve a navigational purpose but often become magnets for cruft. If the lists were at least well-sourced that could be forgivable. The difference you point out with discographies or the like is the number of potential entries and the degree to which anyone cares. For example, we get NN entries at Bronze Star Medal all the time and they get reverted. Wikipedia isn't going to list every recipient, even with sourcing. Whereas a list of people in a band is going to be short and ought to be referenced. The same is true here. How many podcasts does Panoply or PodcastOne or the like have? Does it even matter? You can revert if you disagree but notability certainly doesn't hinge on which podcasts the platform supports. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Chris Troutman. I'm inclined to think that a list of podcasts on article about a podcasting company should be complete, granted that they ought to be cited, if not linked to their own articles. Were I to revert your edit, I'd do so only if adding "citation needed" tags or, better yet, doing the legwork of coming up with actual citations. Podcaster Roman Mars likens a podcasting company to a record label, meaning that podcasts are like artists and individual podcast episodes are like songs or albums by each artist. Under that analogy, articles about podcasting companies are beholden to the same standards as articles about record labels on Wikipedia, and even more obscure or short-lived projects are worthy of mention, so long as they are referenced. Morganfitzp (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war over this. I think articles look stronger when none of the content is questionable but since the AfD is ongoing I'm not going to edit it further lest there be an appearance of dishonesty on my part. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Me neither. Morganfitzp (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

My vision was that the article would eventually be like Gimlet Media or Maximum Fun — that the list of podcasts would have a ~paragraph-length description for each podcast, so the list isn't merely listcruft. That takes real work though, to avoid having a copyvio of the official synopsis, while still properly summarizing each podcast. It would take someone familiar with each podcast though, so it could take a while to build up. Chris is an immediatist though, so I don't know if those two visions are compatible. (unless there's someone who's willing to put a LOT of work right now) --Hirsutism (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The work that editors have put in this week has brought it up past start-class, and because Panoply is still an emerging venture for Slate, the article will grow as it grows. In the meantime, why not add some bells and whistles to spruce up this article? Like this timeline that appears on the Gimlet article? Could be fun! Morganfitzp (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Layoffs and change of focus

https://hotpodnews.com/breaking-shake-ups-at-panoply-and-slate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.236.71 (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)